gri
Apr 22, 03:53 PM
Apple should produce a really light and small MacBook Air: 400 to 600 g and 7-inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
Its already there and even smaller - and called iPhone...:rolleyes:
Its already there and even smaller - and called iPhone...:rolleyes:
baryon
Apr 20, 01:25 PM
That's pretty ridiculous...
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 11:28 AM
Is this a true statement from the OP: "But with new Sandy Bridge processors from Intel sporting improved graphics performance"
Yes, this generation of Intel IGPs is improved compared to the earlier generation of Intel IGPs.
That doesn't put it on par with the nVidia 320M though. If Intel had only licensed nVidia to make chipsets, we'd have had something much better than even the 320M to put in the newer TB equipped Macbook Pros and these new Airs. Now we're stuck downgrading the graphics to upgrade the processor.
I'm glad I bought my 320M equipped model, I'll keep it around for a while it seems.
Yes, this generation of Intel IGPs is improved compared to the earlier generation of Intel IGPs.
That doesn't put it on par with the nVidia 320M though. If Intel had only licensed nVidia to make chipsets, we'd have had something much better than even the 320M to put in the newer TB equipped Macbook Pros and these new Airs. Now we're stuck downgrading the graphics to upgrade the processor.
I'm glad I bought my 320M equipped model, I'll keep it around for a while it seems.
inkswamp
Apr 28, 03:53 PM
Steve Ballmer about the iPhone...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
See A Mac User Debunks 10 Mac User Myths about Microsoft (http://geekshovel.com/?p=191) and scroll down to #2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
See A Mac User Debunks 10 Mac User Myths about Microsoft (http://geekshovel.com/?p=191) and scroll down to #2.
wkhahn
Oct 12, 02:32 PM
I would love to have a red iPod, but I don't know why we would ever give money to help fight AIDS on a continent where the people take NO precautions to prevent themselves from getting AIDS... I mean, sure many children are born with it in Africa, but for soooo many adults, they could prevent the spread if they would just be monogamous.
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
Thank you Captain Obvious. Next you'll tell me that water is generally wet. I'll bet you know people who have had sex outside a monogamous relationship, and you probably live outside of Africa. While you're solution, if put into perfect practice, would "solve" the problem, this solution is not even workable in more modern societies, much less those where the local healer has more credibility and less reliable information than the Doctors Without Borders or Peace Crops volunteers. Part of the problem with AIDS in Africa is the belief that men who have sex, whether consensual or not, with a virgin girl will cure themselves of AIDS. So of course the focus in on women and children. Treat and support the women, so they can help raise the children resulting from these unwanted sexual encounters,and educate the children, boys and girls alike, about the realities of the disease.
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
Thank you Captain Obvious. Next you'll tell me that water is generally wet. I'll bet you know people who have had sex outside a monogamous relationship, and you probably live outside of Africa. While you're solution, if put into perfect practice, would "solve" the problem, this solution is not even workable in more modern societies, much less those where the local healer has more credibility and less reliable information than the Doctors Without Borders or Peace Crops volunteers. Part of the problem with AIDS in Africa is the belief that men who have sex, whether consensual or not, with a virgin girl will cure themselves of AIDS. So of course the focus in on women and children. Treat and support the women, so they can help raise the children resulting from these unwanted sexual encounters,and educate the children, boys and girls alike, about the realities of the disease.
MegaSignal
Sep 15, 05:51 PM
If, for example, someone is using Verizon Wireless, would the Apple Phone work for them? In other words, how "universal" would this phone truly be? Would it be able to compete in international markets?
(edited: clarification)
(edited: clarification)
w00master
Nov 17, 03:33 PM
Boom:
http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520
To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"
Boom. So what now apologists?
w00master
http://twitter.com/kickingbear/status/5803909520
To quote:
"Good question raised by Guy English: Why is it OK for the new Star Wars: Trench Run iPhone game to include this image of an iPhone, when many other apps, like for example Instapaper, have been rejected for including original icon artwork that merely resembles an iPhone?"
Boom. So what now apologists?
w00master
brad.c
Sep 12, 02:20 PM
I feel vindicated in my 60GB 5G purchase a few months back, particularly since I got it on sale. If I can upgrade the software, I'm all chuckles. Besides, I've almost never found the screen brightness an issue.
I do wish I could ultra-boost the audio on-board. Some of the video digitizations I have are too quiet.
I do wish I could ultra-boost the audio on-board. Some of the video digitizations I have are too quiet.
Dorkington
Apr 18, 11:57 AM
Minimum wage needs to be increased, national healthcare needs to be implemented and tax holes closed. This country would be in a lot better shape as far as it's lower classes go, imo.
chazwatson
Apr 11, 02:30 AM
Should be public anyway, why can't we have cool 3rd party devices?
The AirPlay private key wasn't made public by Apple for the same reason the FairPlay private key wasn't-- having the private key essentially gives you access to an unencrypted stream of whatever content is encrypted by AirPlay.
The AirPlay private key wasn't made public by Apple for the same reason the FairPlay private key wasn't-- having the private key essentially gives you access to an unencrypted stream of whatever content is encrypted by AirPlay.
loyrun
Mar 23, 05:55 PM
you don't think a web app will pop up for this the second these apps are removed from the store?
***I am 100% against drunk driving, if you drive drunk you are ignorant and should be put in jail. period.
***I am 100% against drunk driving, if you drive drunk you are ignorant and should be put in jail. period.
Chundles
Sep 1, 06:34 AM
Over on the 'other' rumor board. AI details how a user who ordered a single core mini, got a pleasant upgrade to a dual core, 100GB HD and most importantly a superdrive.
Why give us a 100GB HD and a superdrive on the most basic machine, because they want us to have plenty of space for the movie downloads and there will be an option to burn these files to DVD.
Couple this with a widescreen ipod, released now and a nano possibly later but with a screen comparable to current 5Gen. That way they get maximum coverage for the new movie store ie. all models play video and anyone prepared to buy the 6G out of the way before they introduce the new nano.
Its a common tactic of the industry to release the highend model first where it potentially is in competition with lower models. Last years nano and 5G where so far apart, there wasn't a worry about releasing the junior model first.
M.
Wasn't a silent upgrade. Apple bollocksed up the order.
Why give us a 100GB HD and a superdrive on the most basic machine, because they want us to have plenty of space for the movie downloads and there will be an option to burn these files to DVD.
Couple this with a widescreen ipod, released now and a nano possibly later but with a screen comparable to current 5Gen. That way they get maximum coverage for the new movie store ie. all models play video and anyone prepared to buy the 6G out of the way before they introduce the new nano.
Its a common tactic of the industry to release the highend model first where it potentially is in competition with lower models. Last years nano and 5G where so far apart, there wasn't a worry about releasing the junior model first.
M.
Wasn't a silent upgrade. Apple bollocksed up the order.
nevir
Sep 1, 10:41 AM
The way I see it is why buy a product when it is being improved (no matter how little or much) and should be the same price or lower... most likely within the next few weeks?
blybug
Sep 5, 10:00 AM
Anyone else notice that Elgato have now pulled their Eyehome media streaming device without a replacement? Anything to do with rumors of a rival device from Apple?
I'd be overjoyed if Apple has "bought out" the EyeHome from Elgato and gives it the polish and compatibility only Apple could do. I've used EyeHome for over 2 years and it's at best "OK" as a media hub. The box itself is tacky (make it look like the mini or a stereo component...and give it an optical drive), the on-screen interface is pretty kludgy (replace it with Front Row), protected media cannot play (of course Apple can fix that), MP4 support/quality is inconsistent and H.264 support completely absent (again Apple can fix that).
I've always seen EyeHome as a good try by a 3rd party, but really needing some spit and shine that only Apple could provide. I bet the quiet disappearance of this product from Elgato will indeed prove itself to be the hardware analogy to SoundJam-->iTunes. The new Apple "EyeHome" (iHome??? hmmm...already taken...iPod Home?? Front Row Media Center??) should be a very stripped-down mac mini that boots up to Front Row with the addition of a "Settings" menu, and access to purchasing music and/or movies which end up in the iTunes library of a connected computer.
I was planning to buy a mini to replace my EyeHome as soon as it had Front Row available, but then the price went up by $100...simply not worth buying a whole computer for this use. Sell a device like this for $200 and you've got me!:D
I'd be overjoyed if Apple has "bought out" the EyeHome from Elgato and gives it the polish and compatibility only Apple could do. I've used EyeHome for over 2 years and it's at best "OK" as a media hub. The box itself is tacky (make it look like the mini or a stereo component...and give it an optical drive), the on-screen interface is pretty kludgy (replace it with Front Row), protected media cannot play (of course Apple can fix that), MP4 support/quality is inconsistent and H.264 support completely absent (again Apple can fix that).
I've always seen EyeHome as a good try by a 3rd party, but really needing some spit and shine that only Apple could provide. I bet the quiet disappearance of this product from Elgato will indeed prove itself to be the hardware analogy to SoundJam-->iTunes. The new Apple "EyeHome" (iHome??? hmmm...already taken...iPod Home?? Front Row Media Center??) should be a very stripped-down mac mini that boots up to Front Row with the addition of a "Settings" menu, and access to purchasing music and/or movies which end up in the iTunes library of a connected computer.
I was planning to buy a mini to replace my EyeHome as soon as it had Front Row available, but then the price went up by $100...simply not worth buying a whole computer for this use. Sell a device like this for $200 and you've got me!:D
*LTD*
Apr 28, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
If you compare their investment in R&D to what they manage to churn out, it's pretty sad.
If you compare their investment in R&D to what they manage to churn out, it's pretty sad.
Multimedia
Jul 17, 04:16 PM
That's horrible news for me. I Don't know how much longer I will be able to use my iMac for. But I don't want to order a MBP and 3 weeks later, a new one comes out.Alternative temporary plan is buy the refurb 1.83 GHz MacBook for $949 now then sell it for about the same when the 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pros ships. I would think any almost new MacBook will sell for the same price as refurb or worst case $50 less until the Merom MacBooks ship - which could be at the same time as the MBP but more likely by November. :)
SeaFox
Sep 16, 12:18 PM
why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
macbookproi7
Feb 27, 06:05 AM
I think McAfee is a virus itself, or just as bad. Steals heaps of processor and RAM just doing it's job. Maybe instead of combating 'threats' with other annoying programs, they could spend some time informing the general user on how to stay protected... other then just saying.. 'Don't give out your credit card info over the net'.
milo
Sep 5, 01:05 PM
A current LCD or Plasma television with DVI or HDMI inputs can make an excellent computer monitor.
I'm sure they do. But I'm totally fine with the TV I have, I'm not the tiniest bit interested in upgrading, especially considering what the new stuff costs.
And I'd still have a keyboard and mouse in my living room, and I'd have to pull up a chair or strain my eyes from my sofa on the other side of the room. I've tried it, and I don't really like it, at least not for any uses other than just watching TV.
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Sounds like the predictions of mp3 player success for apple. They already have a precedent for entering a marketplace that isn't going anywhere and pretty much single handedly getting it to take off.
I'm sure they do. But I'm totally fine with the TV I have, I'm not the tiniest bit interested in upgrading, especially considering what the new stuff costs.
And I'd still have a keyboard and mouse in my living room, and I'd have to pull up a chair or strain my eyes from my sofa on the other side of the room. I've tried it, and I don't really like it, at least not for any uses other than just watching TV.
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Sounds like the predictions of mp3 player success for apple. They already have a precedent for entering a marketplace that isn't going anywhere and pretty much single handedly getting it to take off.
spicyapple
Sep 19, 04:10 PM
Frame size is bigger but its also interlaced, so in truth its 720x240 every other frame, once its deinterlaced, the picture can get close to the original, but not as good as pure progressive scan.
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC. And since they are encoded anamorphically, it uses the full 720x480 and depending on your output display, either gets letterboxed or stretched wide on a real 16:9 HDTV.
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
Erm... that is wrong. All major Hollywood DVDs are encoded as progressive full frames at 23.976fps. The interlacing you are seeing is the result of adding pulldown frames to pad it out to 29.97 interlaced for NTSC. And since they are encoded anamorphically, it uses the full 720x480 and depending on your output display, either gets letterboxed or stretched wide on a real 16:9 HDTV.
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.
BigPrince
Apr 20, 11:22 AM
Over in the UK not remembering passwords can sometimes land you in prison. Just remove the incriminating files frequently and regularly.
In the US you have the right to not self incriminate...they can make you turn over a physical key to a safe but since a password is not physical and in your head they can't compel you to turn it over....its considered testifying against yourself...a few court cases have faced this issue.
In the US you have the right to not self incriminate...they can make you turn over a physical key to a safe but since a password is not physical and in your head they can't compel you to turn it over....its considered testifying against yourself...a few court cases have faced this issue.
LondonCentral
Mar 29, 02:17 PM
Are you suggesting that an internationally respected technology analysis firm might have more of a clue than the fans on MacRumours? ;)
Fans of Macrumors should set up their own analysis think tank. They'll be the most respect voice in the industry and rake in millions.
Disclaimer; The above comment is intended for April 1st.
Fans of Macrumors should set up their own analysis think tank. They'll be the most respect voice in the industry and rake in millions.
Disclaimer; The above comment is intended for April 1st.
macintel4me
Sep 4, 09:51 PM
who knows they might release a mini mac style media centre with OSX that will be used to download the movies and allow you to burn it straight to DVD/Blueray lol :cool:
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!